Fair enough. I appreciate the honest communication.Do you believe there to be a logical foundation to the "perfection mandates perfection" claim? What might that be? And, if not a non sequitur, how can an assertion adrift in anthropopathic concepts like "perfection" and "flaw" be considered anything other than cognitively meaningless?Parenthetically, it's interesting to define 'flaw' as 'that which is less than perfect' while accepting Anselm's definition of God as "a being than which nothing greater can be conceived". ;)
Label: Non-Sarcastic